26 April 2015

Claudius of Turin and The Cross

Ninth
century bishop Claudius (or Claude) of Turin sought to effect reformation
within the Church. Originally from Spain he had contact with the court of
Louis, son of Charlemagne and he ended up in Turin, at the heart of a region
with an already long history of ecclesiastical dissent.

The Church
at this time is sometimes referred to as Catholic and sometimes as Roman
Catholic. It was certainly both but not in the same sense that it would be
after the Gregorian Reform in the 11th century. By that time the
protests of someone like Claudius would most certainly have resulted in a death
sentence.

He lived at
a time when the Roman See did not wield universal political power. Voices of
dissent and differentiation of practice could still flourish and though he was
certainly criticized, he was in no physical danger. Because there wasn't an
enforced uniformity Christians could still function within the larger Catholic
community. But that time was rapidly coming to an end.

It would
take the Lateran Councils, an empowered Pope and the Inquisition to bring about
the monolithic and frankly totalitarian Roman Catholic Europe we know all too
well. During that era the monarchs of Europe trembled at the fulminations and
decrees which poured forth from the throne in Rome.

Claudius
attacked many of the practices of his day which he viewed as little more than
superstitions. The cross, a devotional symbol largely unknown to the early
church had come into great prominence and he mocked its veneration and by way
of satire suggested that people might venerate anything Jesus had contact with
in the course of his life. We might as well venerate the womb of virgins,
swaddling cloths, mangers, ships or donkeys. Certainly all of these things
could point to aspects of Christ's person and work. Claudius is basically
asking, what is the basis for determining what is proper? Is there a basis, or
is it whatever suits our fancy? Can we invent symbols to incorporate into our
worship?

Most
historians seem to make a mockery of his argument and label him as puritanical,
pedestrian and unoriginal, a fool who focused on silly minutiae as it were.

This only
displays their ignorance as they have missed the heart of the argument. Claudius
was also arguing against the veneration of images, the cult of saints, pilgrimages,
the cross, and all such innovations rooted in a theology not built on Scripture.
He also attacked the authority of the pope and implicitly the institution of
the papacy. He was one of the last voices to appear 'above' the radar as it
were and get away with it. Later such critics met terrible deaths and were
persecuted by the Roman institution.

The cross is
just a symbol but indeed symbolic of a shift in thinking or at least a
theological implication that Claudius had evidently worked out.

The issue is
that of authority. How do we determine the life and practice of the Church? Claudius
speaks as one whose thinking is formed by Scripture. He understood that to
innovate was to deny its authority. Using Scripture as a mere starting point
for a larger philosophical system and tradition would ultimately bury the
Scripture and obscure its authority. The institution of the Papacy was a
perfect example of this. The Scholastic theology which soon followed the era of
Claude would solidify Rome's authority as something that went beyond Scripture.

Is this
really a big deal? Do we need to oppose crosses too? Is this a pressing issue? A
Lutheran friend of mine cannot understand it, he wants to see the cross
everywhere. He likes seeing them on the roadside etc... For him it's a kind of claim
on the land and institutions. That sentiment is indicative of yet another
problem.

I've never
left a church over this issue but it's a crack, a fissure by which other errors
enter. It's not at the heart of the gospel but there's a lesson, a necessary
consideration. I would rather see the crosses removed because to me they
represent a principle... a principle that says the symbols God has given are
not enough. We have to come up with our own. It suggests we can supplement
God's work and therefore the Scriptures are ultimately not sufficient.

Groups like
the Lollards and some of the Reformers also grasped this and there's a long
theological pedigree of cross-opposition. It has nothing to do with questioning
the death and resurrection of Christ. The issue is authority and those who
adhere strictly to Sola Scriptura would argue that if you want to symbolize
Christ's death and resurrection the way to do so has already been ordained by
God. The Lord's Supper shows his death till he come (1 Cor 11.26). Any innovative
symbol which tries to portray this same truth can only detract from the full
meaning and import of what God has already provided.

It is
pleasing to note how you don't really see crosses in the catacombs. It wasn't a
symbol utilized by the early church. You do see other symbols like the anchor
mentioned in Hebrews 6, but you don't see them utilized in worship. What does
that say that the cross was later adopted and utilized? What's the principle?
How do we frame such questions? In light of what authority are they to be
considered? That's the issue.

At the end
of the day, the cross is nothing to get terribly upset about. It's not a point
of orthodoxy but again there's a lesson an issue to be considered. Dismiss it
at your own peril.

In their
mockery of Claudius these historical commentators only demonstrate that they
misunderstand the issue. The joke is on them.

In truth
they don't want to follow through on the implications of Claudius' thought.
It's unthinkable. It would mean the mainstream Church, the supposed glory of
the Middle Ages was not a step in the progression of Western culture and
civilization but a theological aberration and regression. The idea that the
Church was an underground disenfranchised community is too upsetting to
contemplate and destroys the narrative they wish to unfold.

He died
sometime around 827 and was last known to have been at the Novalesa Abbey in
the mountains west of Turin. He was a light in a period of great and growing darkness.